Gad Barnea

He's not even using Persian, he's using Avestan, which is the liturgical language of Zoroastrianism. And so the fact that he chose that as his throne name when he ascended the throne means that obviously not only that he quoted from the Avestan text, knowledge of the oldest part, the Gotha, which is the oldest part of the Avestan text,

He's not even using Persian, he's using Avestan, which is the liturgical language of Zoroastrianism. And so the fact that he chose that as his throne name when he ascended the throne means that obviously not only that he quoted from the Avestan text, knowledge of the oldest part, the Gotha, which is the oldest part of the Avestan text,

He's not even using Persian, he's using Avestan, which is the liturgical language of Zoroastrianism. And so the fact that he chose that as his throne name when he ascended the throne means that obviously not only that he quoted from the Avestan text, knowledge of the oldest part, the Gotha, which is the oldest part of the Avestan text,

Not necessarily all of the Avesta that we know today, really only just the earliest layer of the text, the 17 hymns that are part of what's called the Gotha in the Avestan. So knowledge of all of these quotes are from the Gothas. And so not just his name, but other names as well. But it means that he expected people to understand that this is what he's doing with this name.

Not necessarily all of the Avesta that we know today, really only just the earliest layer of the text, the 17 hymns that are part of what's called the Gotha in the Avestan. So knowledge of all of these quotes are from the Gothas. And so not just his name, but other names as well. But it means that he expected people to understand that this is what he's doing with this name.

Not necessarily all of the Avesta that we know today, really only just the earliest layer of the text, the 17 hymns that are part of what's called the Gotha in the Avestan. So knowledge of all of these quotes are from the Gothas. And so not just his name, but other names as well. But it means that he expected people to understand that this is what he's doing with this name.

So people were familiar enough with the texts Not just him, but also his citizens. So that teaches us a lot about what, at least, what part of the texts of the Avesta might have been available at that time. And again, pictographic and all of that. So I'm looking at all of this and I'm limiting myself in my research to things that I can prove existed in the Achaemenid period or not.

So people were familiar enough with the texts Not just him, but also his citizens. So that teaches us a lot about what, at least, what part of the texts of the Avesta might have been available at that time. And again, pictographic and all of that. So I'm looking at all of this and I'm limiting myself in my research to things that I can prove existed in the Achaemenid period or not.

So people were familiar enough with the texts Not just him, but also his citizens. So that teaches us a lot about what, at least, what part of the texts of the Avesta might have been available at that time. And again, pictographic and all of that. So I'm looking at all of this and I'm limiting myself in my research to things that I can prove existed in the Achaemenid period or not.

Only sometimes I more cautiously refer to things that are not yet there, and I say that I'm speculating, but that these things might have already existed, but that's much more reserved. To make a precise point or a strong research point, I always use the stuff that I can show existed in the Achaemenid period. But clearly the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian to a certain degree.

Only sometimes I more cautiously refer to things that are not yet there, and I say that I'm speculating, but that these things might have already existed, but that's much more reserved. To make a precise point or a strong research point, I always use the stuff that I can show existed in the Achaemenid period. But clearly the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian to a certain degree.

Only sometimes I more cautiously refer to things that are not yet there, and I say that I'm speculating, but that these things might have already existed, but that's much more reserved. To make a precise point or a strong research point, I always use the stuff that I can show existed in the Achaemenid period. But clearly the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian to a certain degree.

They're not Zoroastrian in the same sense that we have Zoroastrians today. But they did have at least the Gothas to this early layer of the Avestan text. And Ahura Mazda. I mean, that's clearly the… the Zoroastrian deity, and they saw him as almost exclusive, the only deity. Oh, really?

They're not Zoroastrian in the same sense that we have Zoroastrians today. But they did have at least the Gothas to this early layer of the Avestan text. And Ahura Mazda. I mean, that's clearly the… the Zoroastrian deity, and they saw him as almost exclusive, the only deity. Oh, really?

They're not Zoroastrian in the same sense that we have Zoroastrians today. But they did have at least the Gothas to this early layer of the Avestan text. And Ahura Mazda. I mean, that's clearly the… the Zoroastrian deity, and they saw him as almost exclusive, the only deity. Oh, really?

I mean, they acknowledge the existence of other gods, but they talk about Ahura Mazda pretty much almost exclusively, especially in the early period. And which is interesting also, because they were more, they kind of gravitate more towards monotheism, so to speak. It's not monotheism, but monolatry in the early period. And then they became more, quote unquote, polytheistic later on.

I mean, they acknowledge the existence of other gods, but they talk about Ahura Mazda pretty much almost exclusively, especially in the early period. And which is interesting also, because they were more, they kind of gravitate more towards monotheism, so to speak. It's not monotheism, but monolatry in the early period. And then they became more, quote unquote, polytheistic later on.

I mean, they acknowledge the existence of other gods, but they talk about Ahura Mazda pretty much almost exclusively, especially in the early period. And which is interesting also, because they were more, they kind of gravitate more towards monotheism, so to speak. It's not monotheism, but monolatry in the early period. And then they became more, quote unquote, polytheistic later on.

Usually we think that people evolve, not that I'm attaching any kind of quality to it, but move towards more of a monolatry.

Usually we think that people evolve, not that I'm attaching any kind of quality to it, but move towards more of a monolatry.